Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30976346›Full record

ArticleOpen access Macedonian journal of medical sciences2019

Evaluation of Rationality of Geriatric Patients' Prescription Based On Beers Criteria in a Tertiary Care Hospital in India.

Nader Motallebzadeh, Geetha Jayaprakash, Elham Mohammadi

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open access Macedonian journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nader MotallebzadehRR College of Pharmacy, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore, India.
Geetha JayaprakashDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, RR College of Pharmacy, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore, India.
Elham MohammadiRR College of Pharmacy, Chikkabanavara, Bangalore, India.
NRR Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimIrrational prescribing for geriatric patients has become an important public health problem worldwide. Because India is one of the most populated countries having a great proportion of old people in the world, studies on the prevalence of inappropriate prescriptions can be very beneficial to increase the knowledge of health care providers and to reduce the occurrence of adverse drug events among this population.

methodsA group of 482 inpatients above 64 years old were enrolled in a prospective study. Chart review method was used. The data were collected from patients' prescription and medicine charts. Each prescription was checked individually for the inappropriate drug by using the AGS 2015 Updated Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. Suggestions were given to the physicians for inappropriate medications.

resultsThe prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication is found to be 11.66% (n = 56). Out of 56 inappropriate medications, the most frequently inappropriate medication is Digoxin (25%) followed by Sprinolactone 19.64%. This study founds age, some medication, length of stay and number of diagnosis as predictors for getting a PIM. Feedback of the physicians varies based on the suggestions.

conclusionThis study concludes that the prevalence of PIMs among geriatrics patients of ≥ 65 years old is 11.66%. Some predictors have been identified for getting a PIM. This study shows that physicians' feedback is dependent on the suggestions being given.

Indexed as

Beers CriteriaPotentially inappropriate Medication (PIM)Predictors of PIMPrevalence of PIM

Identifiers

PMID30976346
PMCPMC6454164
OpenAlexW2923834267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.